Sigh... My dearest friend, Bill.  You STILL seem to
not get my point/proposal!  Haven't you read I'm
merely advocating we'd be allowed to measure time in
kis?  You can keep the second *as is* if you insist.

The beauty of this project, Bill, is that we would
*collapse the time framework to ONE CONVERSION FACTOR,
PERIOD*!  That's it?  No more 60-60-24 crap, gone,
disappeared!

Sure, watches would change, but once people realize
the formidable gains in tracking time by 100's I can
only be optimistic that the idea WOULD catch on.

Then in the future who knows whether touching the SI
second could be revisited?  Technology is a wonderful
thing!  ;-)

I'll make my last comment on your last paragraphs
later, since they're thoughtful and deserve more time.
 I have to stop now.

In the meantime have a great weekend, my friend.

Cheers,

Marcus

 --- Bill Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> On 2004 Dec 1 , at 5:29 PM, mavi fibe wrote:
> > I canNOT support a model that would involve
> changing
> > the size of the meter, P-E-R-I-O-D!  ... We can
> accomplish the SAME 
> > goal
> > (decimalization of time) in a much more effective
> way,
> > ... via a redefinition of a new sizefor the
> second.
> 
> I applaud mavi fibe's rejection of any suggestion
> that the metre be 
> radically redefined.*
> 
> But I find his suggestion that the second be
> radically redefined 
> equally objectionable.
> 
> I am interested in promoting SI metric, not
> destroying it by changing 
> the well established and highly precise definitions
> of the basic units 
> like either the metre or the second.
> 
> The problem seems to be decimalization of the way we
> measure time of 
> day (in minutes and hours). Change the minutes and
> hours if you wish 
> (they are not part of SI anyway), but leave the
> second (and the metre) 
> alone.
> 
> There are 84600 seconds in an average day (it
> varies). Learn to live 
> with it. My height and mass are 1.8 m and 71 kg. I'd
> like them to be 
> nice round numbers like 2 m and 100 kg, but I
> certainly don't propose 
> changing the entire SI system just so that someone
> (me) can have a 
> couple useful numbers be simpler. The is no reason
> that the day needs 
> to be some nice round number of units either,
> whether it's 24 
> somethings or 84.6 somethings.**
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
> ===================
> 
> * By radically redefined, I mean redefining so that
> the size of the 
> unit is changed significantly. The metre and second
> have been redefined 
> numerous times in the history of SI but those
> changes were always made 
> in such a way that, to the precision available at
> the time of the 
> change, the unit stayed exactly the same size. That
> kind of change is 
> desirable when technology makes higher precision
> measurements possible. 
> The kilogram is long overdue for that kind of
> change.
> ====================
> 
> **Divide up the day into any number of smaller units
> of whatever sizes 
> you choose just as long as the net result is 84600
> seconds. Name those 
> other units anything you like. The 24 hours of 60
> minutes each of 60 
> seconds is awkward (but well entrenched).
> 
> I've suggested here before that the day be divided
> into intervals 
> called kiloseconds (ks), where 1 ks = 1000 s, and
> the day contains 84.6 
> ks. Neat, clean, doesn't mess with the basic SI
> second, and has just 
> one awkward part (the number 84.6) to cope with. One
> awkward number is 
> preferable to three (24-60-60) in the present
> system. I'm not promoting 
> this scheme, simply suggesting that there are
> alternative the the 
> disruptive schemes being proposed which change the
> second (or the 
> metre).
> 
> Even that 84.6 factor can be partly ameliorated by
> any one of several 
> plans. There are possibilities like 3 days of 84 ks
> and 2 days of 85 ks 
> in each five day period. We live with months that
> are not all the same 
> length; surely we could live with days that are not
> all exactly the 
> same length. Alternatively, ten day "week: could
> consist of 6 days of 
> 84 interspersed with 4 days of 85 ks. Or maybe lump
> all the 85 ks days 
> together at the end of the 10 day week and make them
> a long weekend of 
> four days each of which is extra long.
> 
>  

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Reply via email to